The writer for the much praised Soderberg's Traffic 2000 attempts his hand at directing this new film about oil and corruption in the Middle East and the background of how business, government, and special operations all weave together to keep our Country's interest intact. However, unlike Traffic, this movie is unable to provide the same gritty, raw experience and instead provides an uneven balance between the harsher independent approach to film making and the more polished mainstream, industry standard making for a odd coupling of cinematic techniques. Character development is attempted, but come off impersonal and short-lived. Some of the plot devices feel manipulative and underdeveloped. Even though this movie has an important message to make, the message is muffled among the various threads of the movie that do not have the same flow or intimacy as Steven Soderberg brilliant film about the illegal drug trade between the United States and Mexico.

this i s a great film. confusing at times, but if you pay attention, one of the best hyperlink cinema films around (certainly a step above babel if you ask me). well acted, and a great narrative into oil. gotta love that screenplay, and that stephen gaghan

quote:

Mark f posted:

I actually don't think we go to movies for different reasons. Maybe we just interpret what people say differently, and that might include fimmakers and their films.

My earlier question begged the next logical one. Why was THIS, EXACT film made? For me anyway, it should have been made to do something along the lines of what you said. I don't think it was. If it was made to make a powerful entertainment which illuminated an important subject, then it failed, all the critical fawning not withstanding. It seems to have accomplished its aim to be critically praised, but it just comes off as shallow by not digging deep in the slightest. It also seems like a cinematic exercise in editing to me, and that editing also dilutes the experience.

Oh crap! I didn't want to bash it so much. I still give it a B-, which is a recommendation, but it seems like it would only be compelling and/or great to somebody without knowledge of the current world situation and/or somebody who wanted to act cool by liking it.

tabuno, I was under the impression that you and I agreed that it was OK but disappointing. I also thought that you "learned" things from everyday life and coincidences. I thought you were one of those "live life to the fullest" people. Am I missing something?

Now I know I'm having a pretty bad day and day yesterday.

Yes, this movie was Ok, but disappointing. What I'm saying is that your evaluative criteria of having to learn something from a movie sounds more like what I'd expect of a documentary than from a non-documentary which Syriana was. I don't think that this movie was intended to teach the audience anything as opposed to expose them to the convoluted big American oil business and what it might try to do to keep the oil flowing and profits going to them.

I do learn from life and coincidences but I didn't expect to learn from this movie and so I didn't evaluate it on that basis. The notion of realism in a movie for the purpose of evaluating it doesn't need to extend to a need for the movie to go beyond what I already know. If it can portray something that I know but haven't already experienced (like man landing on mars) than I can be quite satisfied to experience something that I knew but hadn't actually been exposed to.

The reason I enjoyed Alien (1979) was not what I learned from the movie but how it made me feel and the enjoyment I experienced in how realistic it seemed using the premise of some ore-processing miners just happening to encounter a monster.

As for Syriana (2005), I found the movie to be decent, a good attempt, but not in the same league as Traffic (2000) in terms of editing/pacing, grittiness/rawness putting us into the movie.

I'm still having a bad day and from what I've received in the mail yesterday, it's going to be a bad two or three years so I hope this website can tolerate a grumpy poster for that long.

I actually don't think we go to movies for different reasons. Maybe we just interpret what people say differently, and that might include fimmakers and their films.

My earlier question begged the next logical one. Why was THIS, EXACT film made? For me anyway, it should have been made to do something along the lines of what you said. I don't think it was. If it was made to make a powerful entertainment which illuminated an important subject, then it failed, all the critical fawning not withstanding. It seems to have accomplished its aim to be critically praised, but it just comes off as shallow by not digging deep in the slightest. It also seems like a cinematic exercise in editing to me, and that editing also dilutes the experience.

Oh crap! I didn't want to bash it so much. I still give it a B-, which is a recommendation, but it seems like it would only be compelling and/or great to somebody without knowledge of the current world situation and/or somebody who wanted to act cool by liking it.

tabuno, I was under the impression that you and I agreed that it was OK but disappointing. I also thought that you "learned" things from everyday life and coincidences. I thought you were one of those "live life to the fullest" people. Am I missing something?

quote:

mark f posted:

I really don't want to bash the movie too much because I believe that it's decent, but my question is does anybody believe that they learned anything NEW about this film's subject by watching it? The whole thing seemed so old-news and predictable as I mentioned in my earlier comments.

quote:

ericg75 posted:

I wouldn't say I necessarily learned anything, but I thought it managed to humanize some of the elements of the big oil game. Especially in the case of the Suicide Terrorist plotline. I think I walked away from the movie with a better understanding of what's going through their minds, instead of saying,"They're just insane."

learned anything NEW about this film's subject by watching it? is what Mark f suggests as a way to evaluate a movie. For me, learning a subject sounds notoriously like going to school, taking classes, perhaps as close as I could get to what Mark f is referring to is looking at a documentary. When I go to see theaterical film production, I go into the movie house expecting to experience some phenomenon that takes place over a period of time that has a story, plot in a way that I am entertained, fascinated by the visual and auditory elements that enable me to feel deeply, care about the characters, and feel that I had some sort of multi-sensory ride through time. I guess that Mark f and myself have different expectations about what movies are about.

I have heard that if one read the The Iliad and the Odyssey together with the Bible that just about everything ever written or produced for the movies has already been done. So to expect something new or predictable is perhaps expecting something that can only occur in another dimension (that's how come us science fiction fans are so peculiar).

As for ericg75 comments about the humanizing of the oil game, particularly the terrorists, I feel that even this portrayal was muted and underdeveloped. I believe that by cutting down from four to three narrative strands in this movie, the movie could have been developed into a much more qualitative, deeply moving, intimate, and richly rewarding as well as much more controversial but talked about movie.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I really don't want to bash the movie too much because I believe that it's decent, but my question is does anybody believe that they learned anything NEW about this film's subject by watching it? The whole thing seemed so old-news and predictable as I mentioned in my earlier comments.

I wouldn't say I necessarily learned anything, but I thought it managed to humanize some of the elements of the big oil game. Especially in the case of the Suicide Terrorist plotline. I think I walked away from the movie with a better understanding of what's going through their minds, instead of saying,"They're just insane."

I really don't want to bash the movie too much because I believe that it's decent, but my question is does anybody believe that they learned anything NEW about this film's subject by watching it? The whole thing seemed so old-news and predictable as I mentioned in my earlier comments.

One thing I'd point out, jesusbristo, is that I think Stephen Gaghan did a good job of trying to show all the players in the oil game. I don't think it would be as believable were he to boil it down to a few charaters. Although the "Good Sheik, Evil Christopher Plummer, and conflicted Clooney" script would've been way easier to follow and possibly more entertaining, it would've lost most of the authenticity the film has in showing the whole story and painting most of the characters in shades of grey.

When you hear people associated with the film say it's confusing on purpose, that's bullsh!t frankly. What they mean is that the film must be chaotic because the subject matter is. Fine, but any writer will tell you that's no excuse to make it confusing.

You also hear the "it is refreshing that everything isn't over-explained argument for a change" argument as well. Yes, that is a good thing about this movie, but again, no excuse to making it confusing.

Separate issues.

This 'confusing' thing is a really a smokescreen. The movie isn't confusing. The word we're looking for is 'convoluted' in the bad sense of the meaning. It is needlessly complicated.

There is a sign post to this idea as big as a barn door: Christopher Plummer is in the movie for like 5 minutes. His role is not a cameo but an amazing opportunity missed. When you're lucky enough to get Plummer in a film, you don't use him as a glorified prop. You get the writer to give him more scenes, and you make him a central figure.

The problem with this screenwriter turned director is the screenwriting. It blows. This is a rare moment when a writer turns out to be a far better director.

I'm a screenwriter of sorts, and I promise you that if this script was bounced into ANY writing class in the nation, the notes would have been simple: you've got WAY too many characters doing WAY to little. Either triple the length of the script, or eliminate all references to Matt Damon's storyline.

Matt and Clooney are co-protagonists in this piece. Unfortunately, Clooney's story is interesting and Matt's isn't. Elements of Matt's story are interesting, but nothing his character says or does. Only what he watches. This means he, his wife, his kid, the tragedy, ALL OF IT could be cut. The best parts of it could have been grafted onto Clooney's story instead.

SPOILER ZONE***************

Think of it this way. Remember how the movie ends? Matt walks away, Clooney doesn't? Now imagine how much more powerful this scene would have been with Damon gone. Clooney doesn't walk away, story over. Instead the writer/director completely pulled the punch and let someone walk away. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Another example: did you notice that Clooney's kid appeared and then disappeared? Or that Clooney's wife, I believe, was only referred to but never seen? And why I might ask? Meanwhile, we meet Damon's wife and kids. I might ask why again. Wouldn't it have ten times more powerful if Damon's wife and kids belonged to Clooney? If it was a Clooney who accidentally was indebted to the oil sheik son? So that in the end, when Clooney runs up to the sheik, they already knew each other?

Go the MetaCritic's page on this film. Read the last review by the Hollywood Reporter guy. He nails this film.

I don't think the "confusing" plot is necessarily a problem, but it does require the viewer to pay attention. It is a sharp contrast to most movie scripts, which feel the need to almost overexplain everything that's going on.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I saw this over the week end, at I thought it was a pretty good film. Most of the criticisms I read were that it was a little tough to follow, which is true. On one hand, I liked that Stephen Gaghan didn't try to to dumb down the story, but on the other hand, there were a few plot points I'm still not sure if I understand correctly. The Cinematography, Editing, and Acting are all top notch though. Overall, it's not as good a "Traffic", but if you liked that film, you'd probably enjoy "Syriana" very much.

A friend of my saw this last weekend. He said he enjoyed it. But was hard to fallow in spots. But it did give him something to think about afterwards.

I haven't seen it yet(planning to), but I have read that it was intentionally confusing and hard to follow. I have heard interviews with the real life guy Clooney's character is based on, and he said it was confusing on purpose, one reason is to demonstrate what a clusterf**k the whole situation was(is?).

Here's what my first impression was.

I saw this over the week end, at I thought it was a pretty good film. Most of the criticisms I read were that it was a little tough to follow, which is true. On one hand, I liked that Stephen Gaghan didn't try to to dumb down the story, but on the other hand, there were a few plot points I'm still not sure if I understand correctly. The Cinematography, Editing, and Acting are all top notch though. Overall, it's not as good a "Traffic", but if you liked that film, you'd probably enjoy "Syriana" very much.